Last-minute efforts to step back from the fiscal cliff ran into trouble on Tuesday as Republicans in the House of Representatives balked at a deal that would prevent Washington from pushing the world's biggest economy into a recession.

House Republicans complained that a bill passed by the Senate in a late-night show of unity to prevent a budget crisis contained tax hikes for the wealthiest Americans but no spending cuts. Some conservatives sought to change the bill to add cuts.

That would set up a high-stakes showdown between the two chambers and risk a stinging rebuke from financial markets that are due to open in Asia in a few hours.

The Senate would refuse to accept any changes to the bill, a Senate aide said, and it appeared increasingly possible that Congress could push the country over the fiscal cliff after all, despite months of effort.

Strictly speaking, the United States went over the cliff in the first minutes of the New Year because Congress failed to produce legislation to halt $600 billion of tax hikes and spending cuts that start kicking in on Jan. 1.

But with financial markets and federal government offices closed for the New Year's Day holiday, lawmakers had a little more time to work out a compromise without real-world consequences.

The Senate bill drew overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats alike when it passed by a vote of 89 to 8.

But Republicans who control the House expressed wide dismay with the measure, which includes only $12 billion in spending cuts along with $620 billion in tax increases on top earners.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, told reporters after huddling with other Republicans that he does not support the Senate's bill.

“The lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill was a universal concern among members in today’s meeting. Conversations with members will continue throughout the afternoon on the path forward,” said Cantor spokesman Rory Cooper.

Income tax rates: Extends decade-old tax cuts on incomes up to $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples. Earnings above those amounts would be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Extends Clinton-era caps on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.

Estate tax: Estates would be taxed at a top rate of 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates. In 2012, such estates were subject to a top rate of 35 percent.

Capital gains, dividends: Taxes on capital gains and dividend income exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.

Alternative minimum tax: Permanently addresses the alternative minimum tax and indexes it for inflation to prevent nearly 30 million middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers from being hit with higher tax bills averaging almost $3,000. The tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthy did not avoid owing taxes by using loopholes.

Other tax changes: Extends for five years Obama-sought expansions of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and an up-to-$2,500 tax credit for college tuition. Also extends for one year accelerated “bonus” depreciation of business investments in new property and equipment, a tax credit for research and development costs and a tax credit for renewable energy such as wind-generated electricity.

Unemployment benefits: Extends jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for one year.

Cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors: Blocks a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year. The cut is the product of an obsolete 1997 budget formula.

Social Security payroll tax cut: Allows a 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax first enacted two years ago to lapse, which restores the payroll tax to 6.2 percent.

Across-the-board cuts: Delays for two months $109 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts set to start striking the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week. Cost of $24 billion is divided between spending cuts and new revenues from rule changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Cantor is leading no charge. He knows that Bonehead will hold an open
vote, which means the Rats with a few Rino Monkeys will pass this bill.
If he truly wants to lead this charge, this bill should not be voted on. Period.

Yep. And Lindsy Graham was out running his mouth for spending cuts
today, after he voted for this sham senate bill filled with 330 billion in
new spending. Goober has a mental disorder, among other things.

Big deal, Romney is one of those folding republicans. In fact, the biggest folder of the folders. Who says it would be any better with Romney? I did not waste my vote voting for Romney and I am not in the slightest bit sorry I did not do so. I voted third party (constitution) with the hope that enough of us would do this, so we could reach the 5% threshold (and those inclined to vote libertarian would also do so) so that next election, conservative parties would have a national platform. We desperately need a strong third party if we are to save this country, and the only chance of doing so was to vote third party this time around. We failed to do that, and so next election we are stuck with voting either democrat or the “me too” folding republican. I am not sorry that I did not vote for Romney, I just wish there were enough other conservatives out there who had decided to vote for a true conservative. We would have a little more hope now, a little easier job, if we had.

This headline is pure unadulterated B.S.Canker is playing typical RINO politics. He is getting worn out by his constituents plus sees a chance to wrestle the Speakership from Boner. So he pulls this headline grabbing crap which is totally meaningless. As mentioned above, Boner and Canker will allow a straight up or down vote. 180 dems will vote for it, these two know they have a minimum 40 votes in their pocket which passes the bill. Meanwhile Canker can vote against it and try to look good, but he is a worthless unprincipled career politician RINO who only lives for power and reelection.

15
posted on 01/01/2013 5:46:03 PM PST
by Founding Father
(The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigblood be upon him))

I hear ya, mrsmith.
Bonehead and Cantor threatened conservatives on Plan B
But pat the Rino Monkeys on the back for this vote.
I’m guessing Bonehead will have Rino Monkeys from safe Rino
Districts put up the votes Pelosi doesn’t provide.
It is being reported that Pelosi will deliver about 180 Rat votes.
That alone should be alarming to any Republican.

Let’s back up. There is a reason why Boehner wanted the Senate to pass a bill first even though the House should have gone first. My theory is that Boehner agrees with Obama and McConnell on taxes but could not get tea party types to go along. so he deliberately wanted the Senate to wait til last minute and pass this piece of crap to put pressure on Tea Party types to go along or be seen as forcing us “over the cliff”. I just hope Cantor or someone with any sense stops this charade. NO DEAL

This vote will determine whether or not Boehner has a party left to “whip!” IF he lets this come up for vote and it passes, I do not EVER want the Republican Party to contact me again. I’ve been a no-party person for 20 years. The Tea Party HAS TO become very active in forming a new party.

I just saw where the House was going to vote on this bill ‘as is’ at 11 pm. No spending cuts are to be added. No spending increases are to be dropped. No tax rate increases are to be altered. Basically, it will be an acceptance of the Obama-Reid initial offer with no counter-offer. My gut tells me that the GOP House will sell us all out and pass this bill. Obama and the Dems will be partying hard tomorrow.

21
posted on 01/01/2013 6:16:19 PM PST
by Hoodat
("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)

We already have third parties. Why do we need a new one? We need the conservatives to take over the Republican primaries, something they are either unwilling or too uninformed to do. Or maybe just too few in number to make a difference anyway.

29
posted on 01/01/2013 6:32:38 PM PST
by Theodore R.
("Hey, the American people must all be crazy out there!")

My niece is one of those people. She is also one of those people whose name will disappear from our wills when we re-visit and revise them this year. Our New Year’s Resolution is to be as sure as possible that none of our inheritance will go to Obama voters, and those who didn’t vote against him.

Me too but it’s so, so bad for the Party.
The first job of a Speaker is to arrange the business of the House to get the most of his caucus reelected and passing this bill will get a huge number of them “primaried” and “third-partied”.

Looks like another hour to go before the vote. I confused the “vote on voting on the bill” with the “vote on the bill” LOL!

33
posted on 01/01/2013 6:52:16 PM PST
by mrsmith
(Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)

Same with my Rep. - Tom Price. When first elected, he acted conservative. But now he is simply a whore for power. He'll do whatever Boehner tells him to do even if every single voter in his district told him to do the opposite.

38
posted on 01/01/2013 7:11:17 PM PST
by Hoodat
("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)

My three... all repuke-licans voted for big government and I am proud to say that in the primary last year... I voted AGAINST all three. My more conservative choices were beaten by the machine. I had to vote for them in the main election as I would rather cut my own throat than to vote for a satan party rat.

My Rep, Tom Price, surprised me last night. He is #5 in GOP House leadership, yet he voted against Boehner. I never would have guessed that would happen. Numbers 2,3,4 & 5 all went against Boehner, which to me spells the end of his reign as House Speaker. Cantor is next in line.

As for our elected officials, I will not vote for someone simply because they have an 'R' after their name. In the last two Senate elections, I voted Libertarian rather than have to vote for Isakson or Chambliss. I don't regret it one bit. I am 100% confident that their Libertarian opponents would have voted against any and every spending increase.

42
posted on 01/02/2013 8:36:15 AM PST
by Hoodat
("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.